No. The point is that the behavior changes based on whether you are running from the command line or from inside a script, that this is completely arbitrary, a

No. The point is that the behavior changes based on whether you are running from the command line or from inside a script, that this is completely arbitrary, and that there was no override possible for this behavior. When run from the command line, simulations for combinations of gains that caused the system to career away did indeed career away, they just continued to do so for the full length of time specified in the function call. That kind of abject flakiness renders the program unsuitable for professional use in that you can't plan for those kind of quirks. I had invested hours by the time I worked out what the bug was, and invested hours more trying to fix it. I finally had to give up, after investing my time and effort, because the platform was fundamentally and fatally incapable of doing what it was asked. It is completely unacceptable for a package to have such wildly different (and undocumented) behavior for the same exact function call. Matlab was indeed stupid. It was a buggy minefield of stupidity when I was using it. Finally, it looks like your defense of this awful weakness on the part of Matlab is, ironically, a result of your commitment to the platform rather than a reasoned response to the case outlined.